Hi FeatherPluma! I am sorry you had to wait for a month before getting a review of your work. Normally, the process is faster, but the problem is that we don't have many active reviewers now. Join in, if you wish! Anyway, here is the review.

Some general comments

I see this UnNews was your first article, so well done! Your writing is good, you know what funny is and you know how to new funny and you've got good ideas. I also see (I see a lot of things) that it was a lot longer before, but you rewrote it. Even though you did a nice job shortening it down to four paragraphs, because otherwise it wouldn't have looked like an UnNews article and would be hard to read, I would still suggest making it longer. Having read the page, I feel like you didn't say everything you wanted and could say. And, you didn't actually dive into the story. This UnNews tells how scientists became interested in healthy people (people with "undiagnosable diseases"), however "Diagnosticians turn attention to undiagnosable diseases" already tells most of it.

As a reader, I personally would be interested in more details, the specifics. How did people react to this initiative? Has anyone been already studied? Are there any hypotheses as to the origin of the syndrome? Maybe add an interview with a happy/unhappy patient?

Concept and humor

Despite the fact that the article is funny and despite its length, there are still many unclear things about, which might be due to the fact that it was rewritten and so its idea changed entirely, or whether you have a clear concept. You start with "Doctors have made a startling discovery." But then - "Some people are seemingly, to all intents and purposes, pretty healthy, sort of." Wait, is this a stunning a discovery you are talking about? Is it even a discovery? I would say that it is an underestimation of a common truth: many people are healthy and even more are pretty healthy, sort of. Maybe this is only a discovery for the doctors? Then more development is needed. Tell about how long they remained skeptical about the fact that people could be healthy, that is - not suffering from any syndromes, and finally found evidence of it. And then you put your main joke (that the researchers decided it was a sign of an undiagnosable syndrome).

The rest isn't clear either. For instance, how many people are actually healthy? There are several contradictory statements. For instance, "At each hospital, up to 50 healthy people will be required to undergo rigorous medical testing for one week each year for four years." and "most often those [syndromes] that affect fewer than 50 people in the entire world, in the entire history of the world". Why does the number decrease from up to 50 people to be investigated at each hospital to 50 people throughout human history? I also don't understand if you are talking about one or several health problems here. I thought "healthiness" was the only one you wanted to describe, but then I saw "centers will focus on the rarest of the rare disorders" (plural). Plus, the title of the article which suggest their multitude.

My guess would be that healthiness can be caused by several diseases, but as it's only a guess, it would be preferable for the author to clear this up.

Apart from that, I liked your comedy strategy about how doctors find disorders everywhere and, for me, this article was a good read.

Outdoor sports have been perceived by the experts as the principal cause of the recently discovered anomaly and should therefore be banned.

Now, what about images?

Pictures help a lot - the writer - to illustrate his point and enhance the article's humor, and the reader - to be able to switch from text to graphic illustration, when he starts to lose attention. Your topic is not simple to illustrate, but you could still put a photo of a healthy person and say that "he definitely has issues" or of a giant medical center or of anything related to what you're talking about. This is where details (mentioned in the first section of this review) will help you, as you'll have many more opportunities for illustrations.

All in all, you did a good work on this article and grasped the essentials of Uncyclopedia-article writing, and now it's time to have fun! Find a funny image, write a hilarious interview, develop your jokes and lead them to the absurd (or not - you decide). Just - keep going!

This was a Pee Review by Anton(talk)Uncyclopedia United 15:21, August 28, 2014 (UTC)